The defendant also importantly stated that he did not leave his duty post until closing hours during the weekend assignment. The only people who would verify that assertion are the security men who did not come to Court to testify or any other staff of the Bank who was also on weekend duty on that day. The Defendant stated clearly that the key was with Vitalis, when the term of his duty had not lapsed. lt is obvious that PW1's testimony is not that of an eye witness account to the commission of any offence. PW2 lamented the uncooperative attitude of the said Bank's officials and with yawning gaps arising from poor investigation into this case, it is difficult for this court to rely confidenily on her evidence, or ascribe probative value on same. On Count l, which deals with stealing, this Court relies and adopts the elements of the offence for which the prosecution has to prove in a case of stealing as enumerated in the case of Olamolu V. State, supra, at 600. This Court also refers to the case of Dr. OIu Onagoruwa V. The State (1998) 1 ACLR 435 at 469" It is on record that body saw the Defendant steal this said sum of money. PW1 was not there when this money was stolen. Neither was PW2. Any evidence given by PW1 pointing to complicity of the Defendant based on information he got from his manager would amount to hearsay evidence , and thus inadmissible. lt has been stated hereinbefore the fatality of the evidence of vital witnesses not testifying in Court and producing vital, relevant and credible evidence before Court. Also highlighted hereinbefore is the absence of documentary evidence regarding actual amount stolen, how much money was loaded and record of withdrawals during that weekend which are sorely lacking. lndeed, in the Dr. olu onagoruwa's case, His Lordship, Tobi, JCA, as then was, and, now of blessed memory stated atp. 4TS, thus: "Where specific sums are allegedly stolen on specific dates, the prosecution must prove that the various sums for which the accused was charged actually got into his hands before he could be properly convicted." Fu,rthermore, still stated: at P" 47s, His Lordship, Tobi, JCA, as he then was "Where an accused person is charged with stealing a specific amount, the prosecution has the burden to prove that the amount alleged was stolen". ln this instant case, the prosecution has not disclosed or established whether the said sum of money allegedly missing actually got into his hands. 1.6